Страница 70 из 120
And the answer to this question is simple and has its origin in the natural up to childish naivety practical question, which once a thoughtful student of some natural-scientific or technical faculty will inevitably ask himself or his teacher of Marxian Political Economy: «How can one measure «necessary» and «surplus» labor time in real production activity, how can one distinguish and separate a «necessary» product from a «surplus» one in a warehouse? — there are no answers to such questions neither in Marxism nor out of it.
Absence of answers to these questions means Marxian Political Economy metrological groundlessness: there are no objective phenomena at the heart of its notions[361], or characteristics chosen for objective phenomena description defy identification and measuring in the real life. All true sciences are metrologically valid: the phenomena they study do exist, and objective phenomena characteristics confronted with their conceptual mechanism can be objectively identified and measured. Only pseudo-sciences including Marxism are metrologically baseless.
If Stalin had said directly that Marxism was pseudo-science, the society stupefied by Marxism cult would have hardly agreed with him[362]; most members of the society, who didn’t want to take care and responsibility, who didn’t want to think themselves, would have rather agreed with loyal Marxists-psycho-Trotskyites, who would have palmed an explanation, which wouldn’t oblige to re-comprehend life, off on them. For example, something like: comrade Stalin has overworked himself, he’s got a nervous breakdown, as a result of it his conceptions have become inadequate, therefore he should be relieved of his work, treated medically, and then taken to a cosy country cottage to have merited rest where «the best doctors» will take care of him. But Stalin said Marxism was a pseudo-science «between the lines»: in the stream of figurative notions present in the text. Someone didn’t notice that, and those who did, didn’t take pains to explain that to others. But this shows that:
“Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” is the work, which can be read only by those who feel the life, and whose right-brain (responsible for figurative notions and creative thinking) functions well, and not by itself, but in harmony with the left one (responsible for linguistic forms and logic).
So, in one phrase about Marxian Political Economy conceptual categories Stalin programmed Mar x ism’s collapse; and since «nature abhors a vacuum» — he also programmed elaboration of original ideology in Russia, which would meet the needs of Bolshevist global civilization building.
In other words he actually destroyed Marxism as an ideology. One shouldn’t think that Stalin destroyed Marxism by accident, through his ignorance and intellectual primitivism not realizing the meaning of his own words and not foreseeing consequences of this work publication, as well as many Stalinists and anti-Stalinists of the past and the present didn’t and don’t realize the meaning of his words. Stalin hit Marxism’s underbelly[363]; his blow was aimed, concealed from the enemy and merciless. Ever since Marxism exists as a corpse-zombie: overt Marxists haven’t realized it, and Marxists-«esoterics», who are guided by a different ideology from the begi
In “Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.” there’s the following extremely important part:
«8) Should there be a special chapter in the textbook on Lenin and Stalin as the founders of the political economy of socialism?
I think that the chapter, «The Marxist Theory of Socialism. Founding of the Political Economy of Socialism by V.I. Lenin and J.V. Stalin», should be excluded from the textbook. It is entirely u
In our opinion, fussy contemporaries just drove Stalin to such a state when he could write without sarcasm neither about the present «Marxian study of socialism» and «Socialism Political Economy» as a science, nor about Lenin’s and his role in the creation of this intoxicating verbiage, distribution of which in the society he couldn’t openly prevent alone. But in traditional understanding this work is a gibe at the people who were involved into Stalin’s cult of personality creation. And we believe, people, whose sense of humor and literature style hasn’t grown numb, will agree with our understanding of the given extract.
But there are direct evidences of Stalin’s uneasiness about absence of sociological theory in the USSR, which would meet demands of Socialism and Communism building. A quotation from an interview of R. Kosolapov, published in «Zavtra» («Tomorrow») newspaper № 50 (211), December, 1997, confirms this:
«From the end of 50-s till the begi
«You should take up the theory’s further development as soon as possible. We can mix something up in the economy. But we will improve the situation somehow. If we make a mess of the theory, we’ll ruin everything. Without the theory we are dead, dead, dead!» (put in italics by the authors).
As a matter of fact, if Stalin recognizes Marxism as a theory of Socialism and Communism building, he has no reason to convince D. Chesnokov that without the theory Bolshevism’s deed will collapse — «Marx’ study is omnipotent because it is correct» — as comrade Lenin used to say. But if Stalin is sure that Marxism looks crooked, then his appeal to Tchesnokov is a direct instruction to work out an alternative sociological theory, if we remember what is said in “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR”: «We could tolerate this incongruity <of Marxism conceptual mechanism to the real life> for a certain period, but the time has come to put an end to it». We should understand that if «Marx’ study is omnipotent because it is correct»[365], then the words «we’ll ruin EVERYTHING» when Marxism dominates the society are out of place. But if Marx’s study is nonsense, which dupes people’s minds, then without the theory’s further development and release of people’s minds from Marxism domination over them — all the deed of change to the righteous society will be inevitably ruined, and we’ll have to start it from the begi
Besides “Remarks on Economics Questions Co